The Libertarian Party and the broader libertarian movement have taken notice of what happened in Portland at the LP’s National Convention, and rightly so. Portland may well prove to be a turning point in the LP’s history.
But, to be clear, the Libertarian Reform Caucus is not simply about a perceived squabble in the LP. That would be a waste of time. It’s not about the Caucus. It’s not about the Party. It’s about liberty – increasing liberty in our nation.
The Caucus believes that the country has never been more ready for a real third party. Both the Republicans and Democrats have never been held in lower esteem, again, rightly so. With an ill-conceived war in Iraq, domestic spending going through the roof, and our very civil liberties under attack, more and more people have simply had enough.
The challenge is: Mainstream America has no plausible alternative. The LP has historically been a protest party, one that tends to attract very bright and very thoughtful philosophical thinkers. The Party has been more of a “think tank” for non-academics than a political vehicle. Few seriously thought the LP could actually start to win elections at every level – Federal, state and local. The LP historically has taken public positions designed to provoke thought, not to win elections.
Enter the Reform Caucus. Everyone in the Caucus wants more liberty, sooner rather than later. At the same time, we know that some of the more radical positions that the LP has taken in the past are:
A matter of debate within the LP
So extreme as to alienate the vast majority of Americans
The Caucus has come together not to “oust” or “purge” those who enjoy publicly discussing some of the more challenging aspects of libertarian theory. Rather, the Caucus wishes to re-calibrate the libertarian message for the general public.
Some may not find such re-calibration satisfying. But almost no one seriously suggests that the radical libertarian message is one that leads to winning elections. This debate is simply about strategy, not long term visions. The Caucus wants to start winning elections in the near term…it’s as simple as that.
What Was the Plan for Portland?
Several writers have criticized the Caucus for various – and generally false – straw-man reasons. For instance, some have suggested that Portland was a “purge” of the radicals. This is false. In the year prior to Portland, our website and private correspondence has consistently stated that we did not wish to purge any element in the Party. The LP has relatively few in number, and we can ill afford to lose large numbers of people.
“Deviation” seems to be the root critique among many who object to the outcome in Portland. If the LP stood for “hard core” libertarian theory before, the reasoning seems to go, dropping radical planks means that “principle” is being abandoned.
Most Caucus members would have two main responses to that criticism:
Not all libertarians agree with that particular application of the theory. For example, there are quite principled libertarians on both sides of the abortion question.
There’s a difference between political theory and application. Politics is application of the theory, necessarily taking into account the context of the times, prevailing sentiments, and so forth. Elected politicians who are elected may well have a vision of how they might like to see the country become vastly different in 100 years than it is now. They don’t, however, run espousing such a radical vision. They keep it to themselves, because sharing such a vision is simply inappropriate to the situation. Rather, they tend to advocate near-term changes in direction. Most Caucus members believe that’s the appropriate approach for the LP, at this time.
Another charge against the Caucus is that it’s Republican or Demopublican lite. This is also untrue or at least highly misleading. The Caucus is made up of many different sorts of libertarians. Rather than trying to impose a strict ideological discipline, the Caucus recognizes that, just as other parties do, the LP can and does have differences of opinion over theory, application and strategy.
One critic of the Caucus charged that the Caucus used “parliamentary procedure” to “gut” the old platform. This is largely false. In fact, going into Portland, the Caucus hoped that the Platform Committee would make substantial headway in improving the platform. The Committee included several Caucus members and sympathizers. At the Convention, it became clear that little was accomplished in the Committee, so the Caucus did alert delegates to the fact that the Party had a longstanding mechanism, called “Retention of planks from the previous platform,” which allowed Convention delegates to vote up or down on any or all planks, aside from those that were voted on during that same convention. The Caucus did not create this mechanism; it had been in the Party’s bylaws for decades.
At a Caucus meeting, the existence of the “retention” mechanism was highlighted. There was no discussion about which planks should be stricken, although the Caucus had – in prior months – polled its members and identified many planks as “unpopular.” The only “direction” that the Caucus leadership had offered in the Caucus meeting was, “When in doubt, vote it out.” Apparently, many people voted to strike all planks, aside from those that the 2006 Convention had explicitly voted to adopt, per the bylaws. To everyone’s surprise, about 80% of the planks were dropped.
In post-Convention discussion, most of the Caucus leadership believes that the current platform is an improvement, but that it remains a work in progress. Several important planks were indiscriminately dropped; virtually the entire document remains outside the Caucus’s Statement of Purpose, which is to have a platform that advocates positions that are plausibly enactable in the “next term of office.” The Caucus plans to continue its work in improving the platform at the 2008 Convention and beyond.
Setting the Record Straight
Yet another charge is that the Caucus plans to “recruit new LP members from the ranks of other political parties, specifically from the religious-right Constitution Party.” The thrust of this point is false. The Caucus has no plans to target only Constitution Party members. It does, however, want to recruit thousands – even millions – of new members into the LP from among independents, Republicans, Democrats, Constitutionalists, and elsewhere.
Some have suggested that the Caucus believes that “watering down” or “abolishing” the LP’s platform is a panacea; that, by mainstreaming the LP’s message, we will be an overnight success. The Caucus is under no such illusions. Instead, the Caucus does view much or most of the old platform, as well as the pledge, as obstacles to electoral success. These, however, are not the only obstacles. Ballot access, party recruitment, fundraising, a generally hostile media, and a small, generally ill-prepared and -financed candidate pool are perhaps larger obstacles to our goal of creating a major third party. It is true that the platform and pledge are more easily controlled variables, hence the Caucus believes we should address these impediments first.
Other criticism includes a belief that the Caucus rejects the “non-aggression principle.” Again, this charge is highly misrepresentative. Many, and perhaps most, Caucus members agree with the theory of non-aggression. In application, however, spinning out each and every aspect of that principle is simply not appropriate for a political party that wishes to make near-term political change. And, of course, there are any number of ways in which the principle could be applied, even in the long term. More importantly, defining long-term utopias is the job of philosophers and perhaps special interest groups – not a political party or candidate. Candidates and parties are, in a sense, applying for a job lasting two to six years, hardly enough time to remake society in one fell swoop.
Finally, the Caucus has been accused of wanting “power.” If that means wanting to elect Libertarians, then the charge is correct. It’s helpful to our cause of increasing liberty and decreasing coercion to have Libertarians in “high places.” Libertarians in the state capitals, Congress, and the White House certainly seems a great way to roll back the State.
It’s time for the LP to take its rightful place at the forefront of American politics. For the most part, Libertarians espouse ideas originally held by the Founding Fathers, that is, liberty for all and recognition that we all are created equal before the law. While times have changed, those universal truths have not. There’s a vacuum now in American politics, with the Republicans and Democrats both being utterly bought and sold by special interest groups.
Will a re-invigorated, new-look Libertarian Party make mistakes? Will elected Libertarians vote for laws that we might believe to be misguided? Will the allure of power tempt even the most principled Libertarian?
Yes, of course. To err is human, after all. But the Caucus does have a vision of the LP taking center stage and beginning, at least, to move debate in the public square in the direction of liberty.
How can that be a bad thing?
Robert Capozzi is on the board of the Libertarian Reform Caucus PAC and is a senior editor for The Free Liberal.
ERROR! Essay is not in database! Please inform webmaster.( home/post/dust.php)
